Teamsters United, a slate of candidates for International office, filed a post-election protest on December 3, 2016 against Hoffa-Hall 2016, the IBT, and “numerous Teamster employers.”The protest alleged that “the Hoffa slate and the IBT deliberately delayed corruption investigations of Hoffa slate members Ken Hall and Rome Aloise, and refused to produce subpoenaed documents that would have been damaging to the Hoffa campaign’s re-election hopes, until after the election,” denying union members the right to an “informed” election.The protest also alleged that the results of the election were affected by conduct that was the subject of other pre-election protests.We decided the first aspect of the protest with other similar protests in Lobger et al, 2017 ESD 378 (February 10, 2017).

We deferred the balance of the protest for later decision, which we now render.

The protestor’s allegations fall into two categories.First, the protestor identified 22 specific protests for which decisions had not issued at the time that P-419 was filed and contended that the Rules violations alleged there “in the aggregate” may have affected the outcome of the election.Second, the protestor asserted that remedies ordered in 15 other protest decisions in which Rules violations were previously found were inadequate to cure those violations.For the reasons that follow, we reject these contentions and DENY the balance of this protest.

The 22 listed protests that were undecided at the time of the tallying of ballots in the International officers election have now been decided, as demonstrated by the following table:

Protest number

Protestor

ESD

Result

Appeal

P-093

Zuckerman

359

Resolved

None

P-108

Lizarraga

356

Deny

None

P-168

Halstead

366

Deny

Withdrawn

P-189

Halstead

385

Deferred

None

P-228

Teamsters United

353

Resolved

None

P-236

Zuckerman

360

Resolved/Deny

None

P-301

Villa

370

Resolved

None

P-316

Motty

365

Deny

None

P-330

Zuckerman

340

Deny

Affirmed

P-339

Zuckerman/Lobger

367

Deny

None

P-368

Zuckerman

341

Grant/Deny

Affirmed

P-373

Teamsters United

344

Deny

None

P-378

Yarbrough

379

Deny

None

P-385

Zuckerman

343

Deny

Affirmed

P-388

Teamsters United

381

Deny

None

P-394

Teamsters United

384

Deny

None

P-400

Zerrougui/Ruelas

354

Deferred

None

P-404

Crooms

345

Deny

None

P-409

Cintron

375

Deny

None

P-410

Lobger

378

Deny

Pending

P-411

Halstead

378

Deny

Pending

P-412

Sylvester

378

Deny

Pending

The lone protest from this list that was granted was Zuckerman, 2016 ESD 341 (December 15, 2016), where we found that Dennis Corrigan violated the Rules by striking Richard Galvan when Galvan was campaigning.We ordered a remedy against Corrigan.However, we held that Corrigan’s actions did not substantially interfere with the campaign activity of Galvan or Teamsters United.We therefore ordered no additional remedy.Zuckerman appealed the decision on this latter point, contending through counsel that Corrigan’s violation impacted Teamsters United.The Election Appeals Master denied the appeal and affirmed our decision, writing: “The appellant has not demonstrated that the Election Supervisor abused his discretion in failing to impose additional unspecified remedial relief for the violation.” Zuckerman, 2017 EAM 36 (January 13, 2017).The other 21 protests were either denied (15), resolved (4), or deferred for further consideration of a remedy specific to an individual.The only appeal pending concerns three protests consolidated in the Lobger ruling.Accordingly, because none of the protests that were pending decision at the time of the election resulted in findings of Rules violations that interfered with Teamsters United’s campaign rights under the Rules, we find no basis for the protestor’s contention that the conduct alleged in the unresolved protests impermissibly affected the outcome of the election.

The instant protest also asserted that 15 decisions where remedies were ordered did not fully remedy the Rules violations found.We reject this contention categorically.Under the protest procedures laid out in Article XIII of the Rules, the protestor had available to it the right of appeal for decision in which the protestor deemed the ordered remedy unsatisfactory.Failure to appeal, withdrawal of appeal once filed, or affirmance of the remedy ordered by the Election Appeals Master rendered our decision final and binding.The protestor will not be heard later that a remedy previously ordered and implemented was unsatisfactory or ineffective, absent a new violation of the Rules.See Durham, Post-75-IBT (January 10, 1992) (M. Holland, Election Officer) (protest rulings that are final and binding under the Rules are conclusive as to the facts and issues raised and cannot be relitigated in a subsequent protest); Cheatem, Post-27-EOH (August 21, 1997) (B.Z. Quindel, Election Officer) (same).

Finally, the aspect of the protest addressed in this decision is not a proper subject for a post-election protest under the Rules.Post-election protests are defined as “[p]rotests concerning election day or post election day conduct.”Article XIII, Section 3.This protest did not identify conduct that occurred on or after the date the results in the International officers election were announced.To the contrary, it cited only conduct that had occurred previously and either was remedied or was found not to violate the Rules.Accordingly, we conclude that this aspect of the protest was untimely filed.Berg, 2006 ESD 296 (June 4, 2006), aff’d, 2006 EAM 44 (June 15, 2006).In Lobger, supra, we exercised our discretion to waive the timeliness defect and consider the other aspect of this protest on its merits.We did so because we were deciding in Lobger three other protests on the same subject matter that were timely filed.We do not waive the timeliness defect of the aspect of the instant protest we decide here.

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the balance of this protest in all respects.

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within three (3) working days of receipt of this decision.The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal.Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be served upon:

Kathleen A. Roberts

Election Appeals Master

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY 10018

kroberts@jamsadr.com

Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, c/o Jeffrey Ellison, 214 S. Main Street, Suite 212, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, all within the time prescribed above.A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.